I know many readers have already chimed in on other posts about “One Battle After Another,” but consider this the official thread to post your thoughts on the film. Suffice it to say, it’s a major movie event for our audience, the latest from Paul Thomas Anderson.
The reviews have been film-of-the-year worthy. Naturally, I went into PTA’s latest with my expectations in check—there’s just no way it could live up to that level of hype. And yet, 162 minutes later, I stumbled out dazed. Is it flawless? Not even close. Is it brilliant? Numerous stretches certainly are. It’s formally unlike anything I’ve seen before. More thoughts.
While excitement is high in our corner of the world—and the film pulled in an impressive $3M from Thursday previews, no doubt fueled by PTA fans eager to see it the moment it hit screens—the Friday numbers told a different story: just $6M.
That puts the film on track for a $21M opening weekend against its hefty $150M budget. Internationally, things look equally rough: even with Leonardo DiCaprio’s global star power, overseas grosses stand at only $24M, bringing the worldwide total to $45M.
It’s the sort of film that isn’t expected to thrive in theaters anymore—at least not at a scale that could justify such a massive budget. “One Battle After Another” is a wholly original story, not tied to a franchise or built around familiar characters. It runs 2 hours and 41 minutes, and its plot and tone are nearly impossible to capture in a trailer or sum up with a punchy synopsis.
And yet, Warner Bros. greenlit the damn thing—a near miracle in today’s climate. That alone feels like a major win for us, the audience.
At this point, Warner Bros.’ best hope is that strong word of mouth (“A” CinemaScore) helps the film find sustainable legs through October. It certainly helps that the film is destined for many Oscar nominations, practically a lock for Picture, Director, Actor, Supporting Actor, Screenplay, Cinematography, and more.